Techdirt. Stories filed under "driving"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "driving"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:34:53 PDTBreaking: Self-Driving Cars Avoid Accident, Do Exactly What They Were Programmed To DoKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/10153331470/breaking-self-driving-cars-avoid-accident-do-exactly-what-they-were-programmed-to-do.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/10153331470/breaking-self-driving-cars-avoid-accident-do-exactly-what-they-were-programmed-to-do.shtmltalking about how, after logging 1,011,338 autonomous miles since 2009, Google's automated cars have had just thirteen accidents -- none of which were the fault of the Google vehicles. By and large the technology appears to be working incredibly well, with most of the accidents the fault of inattentive human drivers rear-ending Google's specially-equipped Lexus SUVs at stop lights. But apparently, the fact that this technology is working well isn't quite interesting enough for the nation's technology press.

A Reuters report making the rounds earlier today proclaimed that two self-driving cars from Google and Delphi Automotive almost got into an accident this week in California. According to the Reuters report, Google's self-driving Lexus "cut off" Delphi's self-driving Audi, forcing the Audi to take "appropriate action." This apparently got the nation's technology media in a bit of a heated lather, with countless headlines detailing the "almost crash." The Washington Post was even quick to inform readers that the almost-crash "is now raising concerns over the technology."

Except it's not. Because not only did the cars not crash, it apparently wasn't even a close call. Both Delphi and Google spokespeople told Ars Technica that both cars did exactly what they were programmed to do and Reuters apparently made an automated mountain out of a molehill:

"I was there for the discussion with Reuters about automated vehicles," she told Ars by e-mail. "The story was taken completely out of context when describing a type of complex driving scenario that can occur in the real world. Our expert provided an example of a lane change scenario that our car recently experienced which, coincidentally, was with one of the Google cars also on the road at that time. It wasnâ€™t a 'near miss' as described in the Reuters story."

Instead, she explained how this was a normal scenario, and the Delphi car performed admirably.

"Our car did exactly what it was supposed to," she wrote. "Our car saw the Google car move into the same lane as our car was planning to move into, but upon detecting that the lane was no longer open it decided to terminate the move and wait until it was clear again."

In other words, As Twitter's Nu Wexler observed, the two cars did exactly what they were programmed to do, though that's obviously a notably less sexy story than Reuters' apparently hallucinated tale of automated automotive incompetence.

Breaking: Self-driving cars avoid accident, doing exactly what they are programmed to do

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>I can and will do that, Davehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150626/10153331470Thu, 8 May 2014 20:37:02 PDTDumb Criminal Posts Video Of Dumb Crime After Leaving Hospital Injured From DumbnessTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/08050927134/dumb-criminal-posts-video-crime-hospital-bed-where-hes-recovering-crime.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/08050927134/dumb-criminal-posts-video-crime-hospital-bed-where-hes-recovering-crime.shtml
It's been a couple of months, so maybe you thought that there were no more dumb criminals doing dumb things with technology any longer. Well, that was a very silly thought, silly-thought-thinker. You should know by now that nothing will stop the deluge of dumb. This latest is special, however, due to the impressive dedication to stupid by our criminal mastermind. This case is one in which an 18 year old man videotaped himself driving like an idiot on purpose, injured himself to the point of needing an airlift to a hospital, after which he uploaded the video to YouTube -- accurately titling it "Me Driving Like an Idiot"

Robert Charles Kelley IV, 18, driving west, first struck a Toyota sedan with his 1994 Honda on State Road 44 near Jungle Road, around 3:36 p.m. Monday afternoon, police said. He fled the scene of that crash and later would strike three more vehicles that were stopped at a red light at S.R. 44 and Colony Park Road, police said. Two patients from the first crash and one from the second were taken to Bert Fish Medical Center with injuries not considered life-threatening, police said.

Police also mentioned that they were planning on arresting Kelley, because of course they are. At the conclusion of his vehicular rampage, Kelley needed help getting himself removed from his now-destroyed Honda and was taken by helicopter to a hospital. Police had thought his injuries were serious, but he was released the next day. That's apparently when the mood struck Kelley to finally upload the video to YouTube further implicating himself. It features, you guessed it, him driving like an idiot with a soundtrack of, you probably also guessed it, irritating techno music.

Markert said Kelley's filming and uploading of the video falls under the “What were you thinking?” category, but of because the evidence it provided police, he added, “We certainly appreciate it.”

While the original video has since been taken down, you can see clips of it in news reports like the following:

Enjoy those multiple counts of leaving the scene of an accident with injuries, reckless driving, driving without a license, and possibly even intentional battery with a vehicle, son. Here's hoping video of your perp walk ends up on YouTube.

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>urls-we-dig-uphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091215/0941257363Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:24:46 PDTGoogle Glass Milestone: Driver Ticketed For Wearing Google GlassTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131031/09591925089/google-glass-milestone-driver-ticketed-wearing-google-glass.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131031/09591925089/google-glass-milestone-driver-ticketed-wearing-google-glass.shtmlsurveillance. I've heard some loose talk about how this type of HUD-link is one step closer to man's incorporating computers into our biology, with some barely coherent suggestions that the eventuality will be part-human terminators walking around and stomping on puppies or something. It seems some of my fellow human beings have played Deus Ex and decided that its some sort of future-telling device.

Still, the progress of this kind of technology marches on despite this kind of talk and its always fun to watch a specific kind of technology "grow up", as it were. Google Glass has reached its next milestone as a technology product, now that someone is facing legal consequences for wearing it while operating a motor vehicle.

California-based Glass Explorer Cecilia Adabie is the first person to get a ticket while wearing Google’s head-mounted computer. And she won’t be the last. Abadie was driving in San Diego when an officer pulled her over for speeding. The primary infraction was for going 15 mph over the speed limit, but there was a secondary offense scrawled on the ticket: “driving w/ monitor visible to driver (Google Glass).”

Interestingly, the law being applied by the officer doesn't seem to be in any way intended for this kind of application. Instead, California Vehicle Code Section 27602 is focused on operating video screens within an automobile that are within view of the operator, such as television screens. You know those flip-down TVs in the backseats of cars? Those had started to creep into the front seat as an increasing number of Darwin-award-aspiring drivers thought they could multitask catching up on their favorite reality TV shows while commuting to work and back.

However, the law gives leave of these rules certain kinds of displays that are installed into the vehicle, such as vehicle information banks, GPS screens, and mapping screens. Google Glass has some of these applications while also achieving the hands-free requirement that has been oft placed on mobile devices that do the same. The only real differences between what's allowed and what Google Glass is are additional applications in the headset and the fact that it is worn rather than installed onto the dash or console of the car. All of which is enough to wonder whether Abadie was breaking the law, whether the law is useful with respect to Google Glass, and whether or not this officer was acting of his or her own accord or if this is the result of an edict from on high. Unfortunately, that isn't the only thing in this case to consider.

According to Abadie’s post on Google+, Glass wasn’t functioning when she was driving (you’ve got to issue a voice command or swipe the side to get it running), but that didn’t seem to be the issue — the arresting officer said “it was blocking my view.”

Now we have a problem, because it seems to me that if the officer said that the screen in Google Glass being on wasn't a factor, I don't really understand why he or she would cite a law that is all about screens being on. And if the problem is that Google Glass in some way restricts vision (and it does, slightly, peripherally), then we're in a different ballgame that should result in a great many kinds of non-technological eyewear, sunglasses in particular, resulting in similar citations, which I've never even heard of.

In any case, congratulations Google Glass. You're now in a technological adolescence, celebrated by your first automobile citation. Sniff, they grow up so fast.

First up, we've got the Automatic Link, a tiny device that plugs into your car's dataport and provides data directly to your smartphone. They even make it into a bit of a game, with a weekly "drive score" that helps you drive smarter to save gas. It has a number of other features as well, including automatically dialing 911 if it senses a serious car accident, and also a car locator feature, so you can always find your car via your smartphone in case you forgot where you parked or if you're sharing your car with someone else.

For quite some time, the car's dataport was solely the domain of mechanics, and they'd use it when you went in to find out what the "check engine" light meant. A few devices have come on the market that you can buy to plug in and see what a check engine light means, but that's their entire purpose, for the most part. The Automatic Link does that too, but it's almost like a minor feature among all of the other features that make it an interesting device.

Next up, we've got the HeatMeter, which is a creatively designed device to measure and track the heating usage in your home. There are tons of electricity meters on the market to measure how you use electricity, but heating is a different realm altogether. Most of the attempts to deal with this have been focused on various smart thermostats like the Nest, but the Heatmeter goes right to the source, by attaching to the outside of your furnace or boiler with magnets, and then its sensors actually can detect when the flame turns on and off, sending this bit of info over your home WiFi system to your phone. And, of course, you can track a bunch of info via your smartphone.

Unfortunately, there are just a few days left on this Kickstarter and it looks like it won't meet its threshold. Looking through the details, this isn't a huge surprise. Even if the concept is cool, there are a few things that might scare people off. The design of the device itself has a bit of an amateurish feel to it, especially compared to many other Kickstarter projects. I wonder if a redesigned, sleeker, more modern version might pick up some more steam (ditto for their intro video). The second red flag for me is the price. $150 seems pretty high for most people to take a chance on something like this, especially if it's not entirely clear that it will help you save money. With the Automatic Link above, it makes a good, strong, easy to understand case as to why you'll save money with the device -- and the device is less than half the cost of this one, and seems at least more likely to be in the "I'll give it a shot" range for many people. And, finally, I wonder if a lot of people wonder how well the Heatmeter actually works. I could see some people wondering just how good a magnetic device you stick to the outside of your furnace will be at accurately tracking heating usage. It may work perfectly, but I could see how skepticism might be an issue, especially at that price (in contrast, again, people understand that the data port in their cars works to provide data).

Finally, we move away from those kinds of sensors to the myIDkey device for tracking all your passwords. This is a little USB dongle that combines voice activation, fingerprint scanning and secure access to all your passwords (it'll even generate secure ones for you). Oh yeah, and it works with your mobile devices via Bluetooth as well. And, if you lose the device, you can quickly deactivate it over the web -- and you can resync a new one via its online storage. The device has an OLED display that will show you the password once you've proven that you're you, and it can include a bit of additional info as well.

The myIDkey has already far surpassed its original funding goal, so this project is definitely moving forward.

There you go. Three interesting new projects that are showing new ways to do more via little devices and information, enabling things that really weren't possible until just recently -- at least not in these kinds of packages.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>make it workhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130316/00560822346Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:15:00 PSTActivist Tells Court That Since Corporations Are People, He Can Drive In The Carpool Lane With Incorporation PapersMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/17014721646/activist-tells-court-that-since-corporations-are-people-he-can-drive-carpool-lane-with-incorporation-papers.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/17014721646/activist-tells-court-that-since-corporations-are-people-he-can-drive-carpool-lane-with-incorporation-papers.shtmlrun for President, in an effort to make a statement on the issue. Up in Marin County (just north of San Francisco) an activist has tried a similar move, arguing that he's able to drive in the carpool lane without another human passenger because he had incorporation documents for a company riding along in the passenger seat. Apparently, he's actually been doing this for about a decade, just waiting to get pulled over.

It finally happened and the driver, Jonathan Frieman, made his argument -- and the somewhat befuddled patrolman told Frieman to take it up with the court. That finally happened recently, and Frieman's lawyer actually made a fairly compelling legal argument. He noted that California Vehicle Code Section 470 specifically defines a "person" by saying it "includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation." It also discusses the carpool lane by saying, "No person shall drive a vehicle upon those lanes except in conformity with the instructions imparted by the official traffic control devices." Finally, the street signs themselves say "2 or more persons per vehicle." Thus, his lawyer argued, at the very least, this is unconstitutionally vague.

“Central here is the concept of double meaning,” Greene said in court. “Citizens should not be left to guess when he or she is in violation of the statute.”

The judge, however, did not buy it, pointing to another section of the Vehicle Code, on the purpose of the carpool lanes:

Judge Drago also referenced California Vehicle Code 21655.5, noting instead subsection F, which states “It is the intent of the Legislature, in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways and means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same time, to encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and thereby conserve fuel and lessen emission of air pollutants.”

He then noted that Frieman's workaround didn't match the intentions.

It seems like the judge may have gotten to the right answer, but I'd argue for the wrong reasons. First of all, while the intention of the legislature is helpful, it doesn't excuse it from poorly written legislation which could be seen as being unconstitutionally vague. However, it seems to me there's a much easier way for the judge to reach the same conclusion without going down that path: just point out that incorporation documents are not the corporation itself. That's both accurate and would solve the issue. Incorporation documents explain that a corporation has been created, but they are not "the corporation." A birth certificate may announce the arrival of a person, but the document itself is not "a baby." I'm somewhat surprised the judge didn't just go with that as an answer.

Either way, it sounds like this isn't over, as Frieman has announced his intentions to file an appeal -- which is to be expected, since much of this really appears to be a form of protest against the very concept of corporate personage.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>nice try, but, nohttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130111/17014721646Thu, 10 Jan 2013 03:20:55 PSTMan Who Gave Police The Finger Gets Federal Case ReinstatedTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/06395121592/man-who-gave-police-finger-gets-federal-case-reinstated.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/06395121592/man-who-gave-police-finger-gets-federal-case-reinstated.shtmldigitus impudicus, is a wonderfully universal way to let someone know what you think of them. We recently told you the story of a delightful woman who fashioned her Christmas lights into the gesture as a way to help her neighbors get into the holiday spirit. What I didn't realize is how many stories there are of people giving the bird to the police while driving around on streets. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me to be driving past someone who has the ability to make me miserable in so many different ways and give them the finger.

But that's exactly what Vietnam veteran John Swartz of New York did, flipping off an officer and his speed gun as he drove past in 2006. He was subsequently pulled over and arrested for disorderly conduct. He's apparently been fighting back ever since and now his court case has been reinstated by a federal appeals court, who didn't believe the arresting officer's explanation that he pulled the car over because he thought the middle finger was meant as an alert that the female driver, Swartz's wife, needed assistance.

From the three judge panel:

Perhaps there is a police officer somewhere who would interpret an automobile passenger's giving him the finger as a signal of distress, creating a suspicion that something occurring in the automobile warranted investigation. And perhaps that interpretation is what prompted Insogna to act, as he claims. But the nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness. This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity. Surely no passenger planning some wrongful conduct toward another occupant of an automobile would call attention to himself by giving the finger to a police officer.

On the one hand, it's good that a court recognized that there is no law against flipping off the police and that free speech should be protected from hysterically reaching justifications for revenge arrests like this. On the other hand, it's a little sad that a federal appeals court has to delve into such territory at all. Of course, none of this should be read as some embrace for flipping off police in general, but speech is speech and it should be protected. In any case, this isn't over yet and no date for trial has yet been set, so we'll have to wait for a verdict.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>digitus-impudicushttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130107/06395121592Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:47:00 PSTProtip: After Committing Drunken Hit And Run...Don't Brag About It On FacebookTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130105/05461321587/protip-after-committing-drunken-hit-rundont-brag-about-it-facebook.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130105/05461321587/protip-after-committing-drunken-hit-rundont-brag-about-it-facebook.shtmlstealing some artwork while fornicating with the Lethal Weapon girl. Or else it's half of Fight Club, the one interesting character from ER, and most of the remaining acting world robbing everyone on the planet in the most mind-numbingly convoluted manner possible. The lesson here is that criminals are freaking smart. So smart, in fact, that attempting to stop them is only playing into their hands, twisting police and federal agents around into pretzels wrapped more tightly than the knots on the ropes with which the criminals repelled out of the banks. You just can't stop crime, because criminals are too good.

It turns out that Hollywood (shockingly) is wrong. Criminals are stupid. More specifically, they stupidly like to brag about their crimes, such as the woman who robbed a bank and then created a YouTube video about it. And now we can add an idiotic, drunk driving teen to the list, who side-swiped a couple of cars on New Years Day and then rushed to Facebook to post about it.

Jacob Cox-Brown, 18, of Astoria, Ore., about 100 miles west of Portland, was with friends when, police say, he posted the status update on his Facebook page: "Drivin drunk... classsic ;) but to whoever's vehicle i hit i am sorry. :P"

In an interview with ABC affiliate KATU-TV in Portland, Cox-Brown says the post was meant as a joke. But his friends who spotted the update didn't see the humor behind it. Instead, one friend sent a private message to an Astoria police officer's personal Facebook account while another friend called police Sgt. Brian Aydt.

Acting like such an assclown that even the people that know you turn you in to the police... classic! Seriously, if I had to decide which was better evidence that this young man doesn't deserve a driver's license, either the fact that he drank and drove or that he thought it would be okay to say so on a public social media platform after hitting two cars... well, I mean both are horrible, but I think the latter is dumber and I don't want someone that dumb behind the wheel of anything.

Look, let's make this simple: don't drink and drive. But, if you do drink and drive, make sure you're the kind of moron that posts about it on social media. Better yet, just drive to the nearest police department, park your car on their front lawn, and pass out at their front door. You'll be saving us all a great deal of trouble.

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>urls-we-dig-uphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101104/03571611721Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:13:37 PDTShocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The DriverTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtmlcell phones while driving for some time at Techdirt. The evidence keeps pouring in and all of it seems to suggest that a driver capable of driving distracted while on his phone will dutifully seek out other ways to be distracted if the phone is no longer an option. However, it's worth pointing out this continuous deluge of evidence because, for whatever reason, both national and local politicians just seem to love flailing their arms about cell phones mixed with cars.

That's why we'll point out a new study done by MIT researchers which has found, yet again, that people who regularly use cell phones while driving also exhibit other risky driving behaviors, even when no phone is present. If nothing else, the method for this study is interesting:

The study involved 108 people, equally divided into three age groups: 20s, 40s, and 60s. For each person, the researchers correlated answers on a questionnaire with data collected from on-board sensors during a 40-minute test drive up Interstate 93 north of Boston. The drivers commanded a black Volvo SUV tricked out with an eye tracker, heart and skin monitors, video cameras facing out the front and back windows, on-board sensors, and other research gear.

No phones were allowed to be used during the study obviously, and yet researchers found some interesting correlations with the people who admitted regularly talking on their phones while driving: they were more likely to drive faster, to spend more time in the left hand lane, to brake harder, and to change lanes more often. None of these are as drastic as, say, upending the SUV and falling over the rail off a cliff and landing in fiery fashion on a school bus filled with nuns, but the changes do suggest an increased likelihood of danger.

"These are not 'oh-my-god' differences," says study leader Bryan Reimer, a human factors engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. "They are subtle clues indicative of more aggressive driving." What's more, he says, other studies have linked these behaviors to an increased rate of crashes. "It's clear [from the scientific literature] that cell phones in and of themselves impair the ability to manage the demands of driving," Reimer says. But "the fundamental problem may be the behavior of the individuals willing to pick up the technology."

In other words, crappy drivers are crappy drivers. If they aren't chattering away on their phones, they'll be singing Carly Rae Jepson with their eyes closed, or putting on their deodorant, or reaching into the backseat for that bag of Cheetohs they left there last weekend. But do we ban cheese snacks in cars? Do we outlaw Old Spice-ing while driving? Should pop music be banned in the car (resist...temptation...to say...yes...)? Of course not, particularly when these studies continue to show that distractable drivers will find another way to run us all over.

At least if they have their cell phone out, it'll be that much easier to dial 911 when they make us roadkill.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>crash and burnhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120824/12570120151Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:42:06 PDTCalifornia Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort OfMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120716/23515519720/california-legalizes-some-texting-while-driving-sort.shtmlincrease in accidents compared to nearby states that had no such ban. How does that make sense? Well, it's because the law doesn't seem to actually get everyone to stop texting while driving. Instead, what it does is make them hide what they're doing, which generally means putting it down in their lap. Before that, they could hold it up and still see the road, even if they weren't paying close enough attention to it.

None of this is defending the ridiculously dangerous practice of texting while driving, but merely acknowledging that the law intended to make the roads safer could actually do the opposite.

With all that said, it's interesting to see that California quietly legalized some forms of texting while driving last week with very little fanfare. Basically, it allows totally hands-free texting -- such as dictating messages via a bluetooth headset or a car service like OnStar. Of course, unsurprisingly when dealing with lawmakers and lawmaking, there's a lot of confusion over the new rules -- with some wondering if it meant that something like Siri was now legal while driving. That resulted in the following amusing passage in the SJ Merc article about this, in which the staff of the sponsor of the bill is left to admit that no one there has an iPhone, so they didn't even really think about Siri:

On Friday, after much head-scratching and acknowledging nobody in Miller's office owns a Siri-equipped iPhone 4S, the assemblyman's aides concluded it will still be illegal to use your actual phone to text behind the wheel -- even by speaking the message directly into Siri.

The California Highway Patrol confirms that just the act of turning on the phone or selecting the phone's hands-free text app, like pushing the Siri button or Google apps on Android phones, is enough to warrant flashing lights in your rearview mirror and a $100-plus ticket. The same thing goes for using your phone to read texts.

"The phone can't be in your hands," said CHP spokeswoman Jaime Coffee. "Hands-free is the key."

Either way, this seems to suggest, once again, the difficulty in regulating any particular technology in a rapidly changing technology market. I still don't understand why we don't just do the simple thing: make dangerous and distracted driving illegal, and just teach people the human consequences of doing something moronic like texting while driving.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>will-it-reduce-accidents?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120716/23515519720Wed, 30 May 2012 03:04:00 PDTWoman Texting Boyfriend Not Liable For The Car Crash He Was In While Texting BackMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120529/03420119099/woman-texting-boyfriend-not-liable-car-crash-he-was-while-texting-back.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120529/03420119099/woman-texting-boyfriend-not-liable-car-crash-he-was-while-texting-back.shtmlsuing mobile operators over car crashes with drivers who were on their phones. Those lawsuits haven't gone very far, but with the rise of "texting while driving" as a big issue these days, someone apparently tried to blame a woman who texted her boyfriend for a car accident, because as he attempted to reply, he plowed into a couple on a motorcycle. The lawyer for the couple argued that the woman should have known that her boyfriend was driving at the time they were texting. Even if that was true, that hardly means she's to blame for the accident in any legal sense. Thankfully, the judge readily agreed, dismissing the case against her, and noting that the responsibility is on the recipient. Otherwise there would be some perverse results:

Rand said it's reasonable for text message senders to assume the recipients will behave responsibly, and he also noted drivers are bombarded with many forms of distraction, whether they be text messages, notifications from smartphones, GPS devices or signs along the road.

"Were I to extend this duty to this case, in my judgment, any form of distraction could potentially serve as the basis of a liability case," Rand said.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>common-sense-prevailshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120529/03420119099Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:49:21 PDTDear World: Self-Driving Cars Will Get Into Accidents Too (Though, This One Wasn't The Computer's Fault)Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/12233315407/dear-world-self-driving-cars-will-get-into-accidents-too-though-this-one-wasnt-computers-fault.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/12233315407/dear-world-self-driving-cars-will-get-into-accidents-too-though-this-one-wasnt-computers-fault.shtmlself-driving autonomous vehicles apparently got into a minor fender bender. Google was quick to point out that it was actually under human control at the time, so really there's not much of a story here. However, since it's leading to a variety of discussions about how "scary" autonomous vehicles are, why don't we just get an important point out of the way: there's no way that autonomous vehicles will have a perfect track record and never, ever get into an accident. They will crash. It's just a matter of time. The real question is not whether or not they will crash, but whether or not the likelihood of getting into an accident (or the likelihood of the seriousness of any such accident) is significantly higher or lower than with a human at the controls. I'm certainly not confident in the state of the art today to be safer, but I find it likely that it won't be long until such vehicles have a much higher probability of getting you to your destination safely than a human-driven vehicle.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hello-technologyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110805/12233315407Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:35:31 PDTThe Failures Of Facial Recognition Software: Drivers Losing Licenses For Looking Like TerroristsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/11201515151/failures-facial-recognition-software-drivers-losing-licenses-looking-like-terrorists.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110718/11201515151/failures-facial-recognition-software-drivers-losing-licenses-looking-like-terrorists.shtmltechnological failings of facial recognition software for law enforcement... but they just keep on trying. RichS was the first of a bunch of you to send in the story of the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles suspending licenses due to a match on facial recognition software designed to "detect" terrorists:

After frantic calls and a hearing with Registry officials, Gass learned the problem: An antiterrorism computerized facial recognition system that scans a database of millions of state driver’s license images had picked his as a possible fraud.

It turned out Gass was flagged because he looks like another driver, not because his image was being used to create a fake identity. His driving privileges were returned but, he alleges in a lawsuit, only after 10 days of bureaucratic wrangling to prove he is who he says he is.

Massachusetts bureaucrats seem positively thrilled with the system, claiming that they're sending out 1,500 suspension notices a day based on such reports. To be honest, I can't believe that they really mean per day, seeing as the article also notes that the facial recognition system only called out 1,000 such matches last year (and then later claims 1,860 licenses were revoked last year because of the software, so the numbers are all over the place). But, still, it sounds like a lot of folks in Massachusetts have to re-prove their identity every day because some computer falsely thinks they're someone else.

Either way, the bureaucrats don't seem at all concerned about relying on a highly questionable system to declare people guilty:

Kaprielian said the Registry gives drivers enough time to respond to the suspension letters and that it is the individual’s “burden’’ to clear up any confusion. She added that protecting the public far outweighs any inconvenience Gass or anyone else might experience.

Ah, the logic of clueless bureaucrats.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you-know-you're-a-terrorist,-when...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110718/11201515151Thu, 5 May 2011 12:10:00 PDTChicago Politicians Say Mobile Phones Should Block Kids From Texting While DrivingMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110505/00370614161/chicago-politicians-say-mobile-phones-should-block-kids-texting-while-driving.shtmldisabling the feature if the phone was moving over a certain speed. It was targeted at parents to put on their kids' phones, but we haven't seen much of an indication that it's gained any traction. No worries, politicians to the rescue. Gregil10 points us to the news that "an influential group of Chicago aldermen," are pushing for a law that would require such software be placed on any mobile phone sold in Chicago, which could then be enabled by the parents (or, I guess, by the user themselves).

Of course, the same problems that we discussed a few years back apply (and haven't been solved). If you think kids won't figure out how to get around such things, you haven't seen kids and their mobile phones lately. They understand the devices better than parents. Even if a parent can figure out how to enable the software, you can bet kids will figure out how to disable it.

An even bigger issue is that blocking texting based on the speed of travel is a really broad brush for trying to stop texting while driving. Speed of travel isn't a very good proxy for whether or not someone is driving. It may be a good indication that someone is travelling in a vehicle, but that hardly means they're controlling the vehicle. And, it really doesn't make sense to block texting for passengers. In fact, allowing passengers to communicate in this way often serves as a good way to stop drivers from texting, because they can ask a passenger to handle the texting instead. Or if someone's on a bus or a train, should they really be stopped from texting? Often, that's when people use such functionality the most, letting others (such as parents!) know that they got on the bus or train and would be arriving on time/late/early/etc.

I certainly recognize the risks of texting and driving. And it's no secret that many, many kids do engage in this incredibly risky and stupid behavior. But laws like this don't solve the real problem. Instead, they just create even more problems.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>technological-realitieshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110505/00370614161Thu, 18 Nov 2010 12:15:28 PSTTransportation Secretary Expects To Use Technology To Block All Mobile Phone Usage In Cars [Updated]Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101118/03041911918/transportation-secretary-expects-to-use-technology-to-block-all-mobile-phone-usage-in-cars.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101118/03041911918/transportation-secretary-expects-to-use-technology-to-block-all-mobile-phone-usage-in-cars.shtmlcomplete ban on talking to any kind of device in your car, including mobile phones, telematics systems like OnStar, and GPS systems. His latest argument (as sent in by quite a few of you) is to suggest that perhaps the US government will mandate technology that blocks a mobile phone from working while the car is moving. We've talked about this technology before (though I'm having trouble finding earlier posts on it). It would simply recognize if the phone is moving at a certain rate of speed and then block the phone from being used. LaHood seems to like the idea:

"There's a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we're looking at that," said LaHood on MSNBC.... "I think it will be done," said LaHood. "I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives."

Of course, it's unclear why passengers shouldn't be able to use mobile phones while in a car (or bus or train) as well. There are also different ways that this can work, whether with scramblers or with software installed on the phone but, in either case, you could see it banning phone calls in perfectly safe situations (on a train or a bus?). Once again, this seems like overkill. Furthermore, it will almost certainly have unintended consequences. We've already pointed to some recent research that showed that driving-while-texting bans increased accidents, as drivers kept on texting, but hid their phones lower, taking their eyes even further off the road.

No one denies that distracted driving is quite dangerous. But we shouldn't be rushing into simply banning stuff or mandating blocks without thinking through the actual implications of that.

Update: LaHood is now claiming that his remarks were misrepresented. However, it's not clear that's the case. He restates the first part of what he said on MSNBC and doesn't say anything about the second part -- when he was pushed on whether or not the tech would become mandated, and he said "I think it will be done." In his response, he seems to ignore that part of what he said...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>unintended consequences...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101118/03041911918Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:19:07 PDTCan Handing Out 'Txting Kills' Thumb Bands Stop People From Texting While Driving?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101019/10554511489/can-handing-out-txting-kills-thumb-bands-stop-people-from-texting-while-driving.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101019/10554511489/can-handing-out-txting-kills-thumb-bands-stop-people-from-texting-while-driving.shtmlmore dangerous, because it hasn't stopped people from texting, but just caused them to further hide the activity by holding the phone down low -- forcing them to take their eyes off the road more. This isn't to say that we think texting while driving is a good idea -- it's not. But just because you pass a law trying to ban a really dumb idea, it doesn't mean it will have the desired effect, and the early evidence suggests that there are serious unintended consequences with these laws.

Instead of laws, I think that a combination of education and technology could be a lot more effective, and it appears that at least some law enforcement folks are trying to increase the educational aspect. Parker Mason points us to the news that police in Iowa have started issuing "Txting Kills" thumb bands (sort of like the Livestrong bracelets... but for your thumb) rather than tickets to those caught texting while driving (they're also just handing them out at schools). It's nice to see an educational component, rather than just strict punishment, but I'm not convinced that thumb bands alone will do the trick...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>beats-bad-lawshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101019/10554511489Mon, 11 Oct 2010 02:35:40 PDTGoogle Secretly Tested Autonomous Vehicles On The RoadMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101010/23395911351/google-secretly-tested-autonomous-vehicles-on-the-road.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101010/23395911351/google-secretly-tested-autonomous-vehicles-on-the-road.shtmlhas been out testing autonomous vehicles on the roads for quite some time, racking up 140,000 miles of travel time. The cars all do have someone sitting behind the wheel ready to take over, but so far they haven't been needed for the most part (one car was hit from behind... and a driver has needed to intervene "occasionally"). Just a few months ago, we were talking about a test of a similar autonomous car traveling from Italy to China, but the Google effort actually seems a lot more advanced. Of course, it kind of makes you wonder why this research is happening from a search engine company... rather than a car company. In the meantime, what was that people were just saying about how none of these Silicon Valley companies were tackling "big" problems any more?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>feeling-lucky?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101010/23395911351Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:16:43 PDTNew Study Shows Texting Bans May Make Roads Even More DangerousMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100929/00202911209/new-study-shows-texting-bans-may-make-roads-even-more-dangerous.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100929/00202911209/new-study-shows-texting-bans-may-make-roads-even-more-dangerous.shtmldon't believe the laws work. And, now, it appears that we have some more evidence to support that. A new study has shown that state laws banning driving while texting have not reduced accidents, and in some cases may have even resulted in more accidents. How could it have increased accidents? Because people who want to text anyway -- especially unskilled young drivers -- begin holding their phones lower to avoid detection, making it that much more difficult to control the car and be aware of their surroundings. The study compared before and after stats in states that implemented texting-while-driving bans, and then also compared the findings to neighboring states that didn't have such laws.

This seems like a classic case of politicians not understanding unintended consequences. Politicians love to ban stuff, but they never take into account the actual response to those bans, and just assume that if the law bans something people will stop doing it. Instead, they may continue to do the action in an even less socially acceptable way -- and that can put a lot more people in danger.

The article quotes someone who makes the point that I've been trying to make for years:

"The trouble is that texting and using a cellphone while driving is definitely hazardous. Nobody argues that. The danger in putting all the emphasis on laws is that it is being done to the exclusion of something else that would be more effective."

No one is arguing that texting while driving is a good thing -- just that these laws aren't helping (and may even be making the problem worse). Instead of pretending we live in a perfect world where if something is banned by law, people will stop doing it, why not focus on looking for solutions that actually make people safer?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>unintended-consequences...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100929/00202911209Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:16:58 PDTIs There A Better Way To Text While Driving?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100823/02465910726.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100823/02465910726.shtmlreading a text message while sitting at a traffic light, but that's about the extent of it. Still, with more and more people seemingly unable to resist the temptation, is the best thing to do to fret and complain about this trend, or to try to come up with a technological solution? Is there a technological solution that would let people text safely? I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem a bit surprising that we haven't even heard of the equivalent of the "hands free" kit for texting. There are, of course, plenty of voice recognition offerings out there, but the quality still suffers (and most people still want to check over the results to make sure they work). I could see attempts at "augmented reality" where the screen on the phone shows what's happening on the road, but your focus would still be off. So, are there any technological solutions? My guess is that we're going to wait until we really get autonomous driving vehicles that have an "autopilot" mode before we reach a stage where any sort of texting while driving is safe.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>or-should-there-be?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100823/02465910726Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:19:15 PDTAutonomous Vehicle Begins Drive From Italy To ChinaMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100721/00461310302.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100721/00461310302.shtmlDARPA "Grand Challenge" showed off some successful autonomous vehicles traveling 132 miles without a driver (this was a year after a similar attempt ended with no vehicles making it). The DARPA Urban Challenge followed, and not surprisingly, there's still plenty of research going on in the space. Slashdot points us to the news that two autonomous vehicles are now attempting to drive from Italy to China over the course of the next three months.

It's not quite the same as the Grand Challenge situation (which had no one in the car, and no lead vehicles or anything like that). In this case, each autonomous vehicle will be following a "lead van." Also, each of the autonomous vehicles will have a "driver" sitting in the driver's seat who is supposed to be able to quickly take over the vehicle should anything go wrong (which sounds like it might be a tougher job than you might imagine, as I would imagine boredom sets in pretty quickly). However, it will also involve real roads with real traffic. In other news, governments between Italy and China are recommending drivers stay off major roads for the next three months...

That said, the folks behind this project admit that "failure is part of the plan." They fully expect problems to arise, and part of the idea is to figure out where those failure points are, so they can work on correcting them. In fact, in a "test drive" before the caravan left, they already experienced problems when a car got between the lead van and the autonomous vehicle in a traffic circle.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>watch-out-on-the-roads...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100721/00461310302Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:34:00 PDTInstead Of Bad Drivers, What If Speed Cameras 'Caught' Good Drivers Instead?Dennis Yanghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1144579869.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1144579869.shtmlmultitude of problems with speed cameras. What if, instead of focusing on punishing speeders, the speed cameras were used to reward good behavior? Drivers who obey the speed limit are automatically entered into a lottery and then notified by mail if they've won. So, you might pick up your mail one day with a letter from local law enforcement and a check for good driving behavior, rather than a fine for bad driving behavior. This is somewhat reminiscent of the idea from a few years ago where police would pull over good drivers and "reward" them with free coffee coupons -- but avoids the whole "pull over" part, which certainly upset some drivers.

The idea is that the jackpot could come from the fines that were paid from speeders -- so not only do you get rewarded, you get rewarded from the pockets of worse drivers. This method may also serve to make a speeding ticket feel even more painful than just a fine alone. After all, a $500 ticket definitely stings, but a $500 ticket PLUS a little note that had you not been speeding, you could have won $10,000 instead? Ouch, that hurts a lot more.

The idea was the winning entry to VW's "The Fun Theory" competition, where applicants were tasked to design ways to change people's behavior through fun. This is a brilliantly viral campaign that showcases the fact that advertising is content, and if you make engaging content, people will beat a path to your door to watch it. The "piano stairs" entry alone has amassed over 12 million views.

Of course, rewarding good drivers with cash awards does not help governments rake in quite as much in revenue, but speed cameras are supposed to be about safety and not money, right?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>carrot-or-the-stickhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100617/1144579869Fri, 9 Apr 2010 00:48:00 PDTDriving While Yakking Laws Looking More And More Like 'Help The Gov't Make Money' LawsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/0035288844.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/0035288844.shtmlmentioned, while I don't think it's safe for most people to drive while on a mobile phone, I'm a bit skeptical of laws that explicitly forbid driving while yakking. Very few of them seem actually focused on improving safety on the roads -- but they do appear to be a way for state governments to make some extra cash. In California, where the fines were not that big originally, it looks like it's about to get a lot more expensive to drive while talking with you mobile phone held up to your ear (you can still drive while yakking hands free -- despite some studies showing that can be just as dangerous). The politicians involved even admitted that this was more or less the plan all along. Get the law passed by keeping the fines really low, wait a few years, and then jack up the fees. I'm all for making the roads safer, but it's not clear that this law actually does that.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>funny-how-that-workshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100402/0035288844Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:16:00 PDTTurns Out Not Everyone Drives Worse While Talking On A Phone (But You Probably Do)Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1727268821.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1727268821.shtml
In fact, Slashdot points us to a recent study that found a small number (a very small number) of people do not seem to drive worse while talking on their phones (and, in some cases, they even seem to drive better). These so-called "supertaskers" are apparently amazingly good at multitasking. Of course, this probably doesn't apply to you and you (yes, you) probably do drive worse while talking on a mobile phone -- which is why you shouldn't do it. But shouldn't we focus on stopping bad driving in general, rather than a blanket ban on driving while yakking?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>so-how-do-you-deal-with-that?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100331/1727268821Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:35:00 PSTNew Data Shows No Decrease In Crashes After Driving While Yakking Laws Were ImplementedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/1516197976.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100129/1516197976.shtmldon't make the roads any safer, and a brand new study has apparently surprised researchers in showing no impact whatsoever on crash data even as studies show that fewer people are holding phones to their ears while driving (thanks Chirag). Now, there could be plenty of reasons for this -- such as that people are just switching to ear pieces which can be just as dangerous. Or it could be that common claims about driving while yakking leading to more accidents are wrong. Or it could be more complex, with other variables having an impact, but which is hidden in the data. Either way, it certainly seems worth investigating more seriously. If the goal is better road safety, then we should make sure that the laws actually lead to that result. If they don't, then it's important to understand why not.